I am starting my presentation with some slides of architecture as a reminder that above all else we are involved in the education of future architects. Such is the enthusiasm of many of us for our specialist subject that computers dominate any discussion of architecture. We must not lose sight of the fact that we are using computers to assist in the manipulation of space, form, light, texture and colour, and in communicating our ideas. They should also be helping us and our students to understand and deal with the relationship of built form to its environment, its users and other buildings. The use of computers should not get in the way of this. In the final analysis the image on a computer screen is only that - an image, a representation of a building. It is not the building itself. It is a means to an end and not an end in itself. The image must not be a substitute for the physical building. We must remember that we use most of our other senses when experiencing a building and it is just as important to be able to touch, hear and smell a piece of architecture as well as being able to see it. Who knows, perhaps even taste is important.
How much does the use of computers affect the design process and the final appearance of the building? Would these buildings have been substantially different if a system of working in three dimensions, similar to computer aided design, had been available to these architects. To what degree has the design process and method of working shaped the architecture of designers like Frank Lloyd Wright, Carlo Scarpa, Louis Sullivan, Charles Rennie Mackintosh or Alvar Aalto.